13 February 2007

Pitiful rubbish

William Arkin is a columnist with the Washington Post. A crummy writer, but a writer none the less. A few weeks ago, he referred to the men and women in our military as "mercenaries." Now, if you really want to see just how twisted and convoluted your thinking and (*cough**gasp*) logic has to be to be a liberal, just take a gander at these gems (all quotes taken in full context.)
I knew when I used the word "mercenary" in my Tuesday column that I was being highly inflammatory.

NBC News ran a piece in which enlisted soldiers in Iraq expressed frustration about waning American support.

I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them. The public has duties, but not to the American military.

So I committed blasphemy, and for this seeming lack of respect and appreciation for individuals in uniform, I have been roundly criticized and condemned.

Mercenary, of course, is an insult and pejorative, and it does not accurately describe the condition of the American soldier today. I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally.
Now, this is where the twisting of time, space and reason comes in. He used a word which he knew was inflammatory, used it intentionally after thinking over and mulling over its use. He says that, after consideration, he CHOSE to use the word to incite, and criticize. Then he says, that Americans don't owe the brave men and women in our military a blessed thing, and whines about being perceived as being disrespectful. Then after thinking over, considering, and intentionally using this "insult and perjorative" (but not, mind you, to insult soldiers), he says that this word that he carefully considered and used intentionally DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE AMERICAN SOLDIER. AND THAT WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE WHAT HE SAID LITERALLY.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? What kind of a bonehead is this guy, and why is he being paid more money that the people who stand in harm's way, day after day, in a land filled with people who want to kill us? When I read this tripe, this is what I hear this guy saying: "Well, I know I used a word that was meant to insult and incite. But I really do support the troops, just as long as they don't win the war over there, and just as long as I can continue to make people think, with my clever wit and wisdom, that I actually do give a rip about these pukes, I mean, people."

More boneheadedness:
In the 30 years that we've had an all-volunteer force, this is the first war we've had where the justness of the cause is questionable and where we are losing and still could "lose."
The only people questioning the justness of this war are people who can't be bothered to read facts, or who can read them, but can just as quickly ignore them. Right, Joe Wilson?
"The panel found," as The Washington Post reported on July 10, "that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts." So you can see how a seasoned newsman like David Shuster might come to the exact opposite conclusion and then repeat this false conclusion on TV every night.

Wilson's unwritten "report" to a few CIA agents supported the suspicion that Saddam was seeking enriched uranium from Niger because, according to Wilson, the former prime minister of Niger told him that in 1999 Saddam had sent a delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" with Niger. The only thing Niger has to trade is yellowcake. If Saddam was seeking to expand commercial relations with Niger, we can be fairly certain he wasn't trying to buy designer jeans, ready-to-assemble furniture or commemorative plates. He was seeking enriched uranium.
Again, don't let facts get in the way of a good "Bush lied" parade. Well, Mr. Arkin goes on to say that even though we don't have a duty to the soldiers, we do have a duty to the soldiers. Or, something like that.
In the middle of all of this are the troops, the pawns in political battles at home as much as they are on the real battlefield. We unquestioningly "support" these troops for the very reasons that they are pawns. We give them what we can to be successful, and we have a contract with them, because they are our sons and daughters and a part of us, not to place them in an impossible spot.
I'll leave you with a comment one reader left. This quite clearly sums up why we are in Iraq. And why we need to keep the figh over there, instead of letting it come over here:

I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my a**. I suggest you spend some time with the radical Mullah's of Iran who support Hezballah' and Hamas and pray for the destruction of Israel. Spend some time with peace loving blue jean wearing Iranian students who are beaten in the streets if they protest. Spend some time with women who have no rights, whose bodies are mutilated and abused all in the name of Muhammad. Spend some time with men whose wives were raped by Saddam's sons. Spend some time with men who were dragged from their homes; beaten and toutured for questioning the motives of Saddam's regime.

Spend some time being thankful for the efforts of our brave men and women of our armed forces - the only people in the world with enough balls to rid this world of ruthless dictators and hateful leaders who believe that you and your ski loving family should perish because you're a so-called freedom loving American

Posted by: May 101st. February 6, 2007 10:41 AM

No comments: